RE: Using or ignoring Types in XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0

> Inadvertently, I am sure, you omitted what 
Kurt went on to say. I quote it 
> here for your convenience:
> 
>  >I still contend that type doesn't belong 
in XSLT, but if it is in there, it
>  >should make processes more efficient, 
not less. If type needs to be there,
>  >then all of XSD should be supported, 
such that an XSLT function can return
>  >an object of complex type Foo.
> 
> Would you be happy if the XSLT WG went on 
to heed Kurt's second option and 
> implemented all of XSD Schema?
>

I don't know if he'd be happy, I'm sure I 
wouldn't be happy since I don't want xsdl 
forced on me, but on the other hand this 
would be partially doing what I've argued in 
some other thread long since for the 
possibility of returning fragments from the 
schema validation. Since to me an "xml type" 
would be mostly sensible as a portion of a 
tree. Of course my arguments was that 
validation mechanisms should be more 
abstract, to allow RNG as well, and to just 
have rules about how a particular processor 
implemented its particular validation 
mechanism. The idea being of course that I 
expected a lot of the smaller processors 
would not support xsd at all, and opt 
instead for schematron or RNG. But no-one 
does anything to make me happy anymore 
**sniffle**







 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list